Dave MacKenzieConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, just because the member says it does not mean it is true.

Canada is honoured to host the world's most influential leaders at the G8 and G20 summits this June. The G8 and G20 summits are major events, and hosting these summits requires complex security planning to ensure that we are prepared. The priority with all events of this importance must always be the safety and security of Canadians, participants, and our visitors.

We were successful in hosting a safe and secure Olympic Games that Canadians can be proud of, and we will ensure that the summits' security is as effective and well managed.

Mr. Speaker, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has denied visas to 60 representatives from African organizations for the blind, because it suspects that they will try to remain in Canada after their conference in Laval.

These visually impaired delegates from the Union Francophone des Aveugles are coming to Canada in the spirit of international co-operation, but the Conservative government is treating them like criminals.

First it was African rape victims. What does this government have against the least fortunate in Africa?

Rick DykstraConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question, although this is not an issue of criminality. The member needs to be extremely clear in how she uses that type of language.

I cannot comment on the specifics of any visa refusal without the consent of an applicant. That said, visa decisions are made on a case-by-case basis by independent, highly trained public servants, not politicians, who are applying the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Among the factors they consider is the likelihood that an applicant will violate the conditions of a temporary visa by, for example, not choosing to ever leave Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the government is treating the blind of Africa like criminals. I assume that it is because they are from Africa and not because they are blind, since representatives from other countries got their visas. Surely there is a way these people can come into Canada for this conference.

Will the government please take care of this now and let the conference take place with its delegates from Africa?

Rick DykstraConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not mind questions of clarification. That is what the opposition's responsibility is. I have responded to the question. Now the hon. member is making allegations that are completely unfounded and have nothing to do with the issue. The government will not stand to be treated in a way that is unfair and that has nothing to do with government policy.

Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag. The Minister of Finance is counting on pressure from publicly traded companies to convince Quebec to join the Canada-wide securities commission. Voluntary approach, my foot. It is all a sham.

Why does the federal government not admit that its real plan is to strip Quebec of its financial autonomy for Toronto's benefit?

Mr. Speaker, it is a voluntary approach. We have asked the Supreme Court for an opinion to ensure that we are acting within our jurisdiction. Some other provinces want to get together to have a single commission under federal leadership. So we are asking the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion, and if it agrees, we will go ahead. If Quebec does not want to take part, it does not have to. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, the federal proposal would eliminate the passport system. By cutting this system, the Conservative government is tying the hands of Quebec companies listed on the AMF and forcing them to make the jump to the Canada-wide commission, which would sideline the AMF and local authorities. It is not hard to understand.

How can the federal government claim that Quebec can keep its commission when the government is doing everything it can to strip Quebec of its financial autonomy?

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is a voluntary approach. We are asking the Supreme Court for an opinion so that we can act within our jurisdiction. The proposed single commission would be decentralized, with offices in the major regions. That said, if Quebec does not want to be part of the single commission, the federal government will not force it to join. That is open federalism.

The Lortie report is clear. Balkanizing the system and having voluntary membership, as proposed, is the worst scenario. That is what it says. By eliminating the passport system, which is recognized and works, the federal government will complicate things in the short term and will take away Quebec's control over its financial sector and hand it over to Toronto in the medium term.

Why do you, in the federal government, wish to take away Quebec's financial autonomy? Why do you want to do that?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country without a national regulator. I see that my colleague quotes OECD studies extensively when it comes to taxing banks. However, when it comes to quoting the OECD on a good approach, when it comes to quoting the IMF about the fact that it would be a good approach to have a single regulator, he ignores the studies.

What is important is that we are using a voluntary approach. If Quebec does not wish to join, then it need not. Furthermore, we are referring the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that we are acting within our jurisdiction. That is being responsible.

Mr. Speaker, the OECD is clear. In times of crisis, having a single regulator makes things easier.

A Columbia University study shows a loss of about $10 billion and 65,000 jobs.

Rather than hurling insults, let us rise above politics. Let him talk to the people who lost money, to real people like Joey Davis, who clearly said yesterday—because he lived it, he was defrauded by financiers—that having a single regulator would be the best approach for eliminating white-collar crime. Let him talk to ordinary people.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have yet to come up with a sensible defence for their G20 billion dollar boondoggle. The original plan, tabled in the main estimates, established the cost of security at $179 million. It will now cost taxpayers over $1 billion. That is about $75 million in security for every actual hour of meeting.

How can the government justify this boondoggle compared to the $18 million it cost in Pittsburgh and the $30 million it cost in London? What is with the Tories' math? What is going on? Why do they not come clean? What is the real cost of this?

Dave MacKenzieConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, surely a member from Ottawa would understand that the firebombing of the Royal Bank in Ottawa last week is part of this as are the damages in Toronto last night. These are prime examples of why we need to be prepared to face thugs who would threaten our safety.

We are on track to host safe and secure G8 and G20 summits. Our security plan has been developed and costed by Canada's best experts in the field. It is budgeted money. We are honoured to host the world's most influential leaders at the summits this June. Unlike the Liberal leader, who has said that he is ashamed of Canada, we are proud and ready to showcase Canada on the world stage.

Mr. Speaker, we need more than talking points. We need answers. Five months ago, the Prime Minister promised that Canada would champion maternal and child health in the developing world, yet with less than a month to go until the G8 meetings, there is no government plan for any funds announced to back it up.

The government is spending $1 billion on sound cannons and tear gas. Why can we not see that kind of money go to children and women for maternal health? Where is the money for that? Why can it spend $1 billion on sound cannons and tear gas, but not commit at least $1 billion—

Dave MacKenzieConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, Canada is honoured to host the world's most influential leaders at the G8 and G20 summits this June. The G8 and G20 summits are major events, and hosting these summits requires complex security planning to ensure that we are prepared.

The priority for all events of this importance must always be the safety and security of Canadians, participants, and our visitors. We were successful in hosting a safe and secure Olympic Games that Canadians can be proud of. We will ensure that the summit security is as effective and well managed.

Mr. Speaker, if the government had managed this correctly, 160,000 additional people could have received employment insurance, 190,000 students could have gotten money to pay their tuition and 1,270 hybrid buses could have been purchased. We could have also paid one-third of the global annual costs of the millennium development goals and saved the lives of 10 million women and children by 2015.

Dave MacKenzieConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, the G8 summit provides a unique opportunity for Canada to show leadership on the world stage. The G8 will focus on broader issues of development, democracy, and peace and security. We are honoured to have the world's most influential leaders at the summits this June.

The scope and magnitude of the security operations associated with hosting two major summits back to back is unprecedented. It represents the largest deployment of security personnel for a major event in Canada. We are on track to host secure G8 and G20 summits. The integrated security unit and its partners have a comprehensive approach to security planning. The security plan has—

Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of the Conservative government knows no bounds. First, the Conservatives created a billion dollar boondoggle trying to shoehorn the G20 into Huntsville as a political plum for the industry minister. Now there is an infomercial by the same minister shrilling for his friend to sell supplies to the Chinese army.

The Prime Minister knew about this boneheaded stunt two years ago. Why have they kept it a secret for two years and allowed the minister to consistently violate the rules?

Pierre PoilievreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member invented a verb: shrilling. I think he meant the adjective “shrill” to describe his own question.

I notice that he did not mention in his question the issue of jobs and the economy. The industry minister is working hard to advance both of those causes.

Yesterday, experts confirmed what we have known all along. The Liberal leader's plan to raise taxes will kill jobs. The University of Calgary says that Liberal tax hikes would cost 233,000 lost jobs. Earlier studies have shown that a Liberal GST hike would cost 162,000 jobs. That is the real issue.

Mr. Speaker, spin and diversion will not change the facts. What is worse is that the minister still does not understand that he violated the rules. He said that he was ready to act as a TV huckster again.

It is unbelievable to have a Conservative cabinet minister as an ad man for Conservative friends with privileged access. That is wrong and it is a blatant violation of Treasury Board policy, section 23.

If the Prime Minister will not act, will the Treasury Board minister act against this violation?